Quantcast

Did you know in the 1950's the tax rate on Millionaires was 91%?

True~Male 2012/01/04 02:48:20

SLIDESHOW: 1950 's tax rate

1 of 1

Did you know in the 1950's the tax rate on Millionaires was 91%?
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Just to get a perspective on the tax rates in the 1950's --It was 91% on Millionaires at the same time we had relatively low unemployment and the middle class prospered at unprecedented level never before seen . Do you think we should return to the 1950's tax rates in order to make the middle class prosperous again so that we can move forward ?
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Gary 2012/01/31 02:12:31
    Yes , let us return to the 1950's level
    Gary
    Funny thing history it shows just how greedy people are today compared to
    1950.
  • Freedom4 2012/01/20 02:48:31
    No, let the rich only pay 20 %
    Freedom4
    +1
    it is clearly time for a flat tax, same rate for everyone across all levels of income with no exception. Time to be far and treat all Americans equally.

    By the way, where was all of the democrat outrage when Ted Kennedy hid all of his money that he did not earn off shore while demanding higher taxes on everyone else and raising the death tax?

    What about when Obama could not even find democrats that actually paid their taxes to fill any of his cabinet positions? After all, they are the ones lecturing us.

    What about the democrats that pretend to care about others crying about even contributing to their own Social Security?

    What about Tim Geithner and Charlie Rangel not payig their taxes or John Kerry not paying taxes on his yacht or Claire McKaskill on yer private jet?

    Why is it that the hypocritical pathetic democrats that do not even pay the taxes that they are supposed to keep whining about others that actually want a fairer tax system for actually paying what they are legally obligated to do.

    I bet that 99% of the lazy democrats on here do not even pay taxes and are just whining because they want more hand outs
  • Bocephus 2012/01/06 16:46:24
  • mae 2012/01/04 20:40:03
    Undecided
    mae
    91%, but with 91% of that being business and real estate write-offs. That game Never Changes.
  • HappyGuy 2012/01/04 18:13:12
    Yes , let us return to the 1950's level
    HappyGuy
    +1
    Great idea
  • Maynard 2012/01/04 13:01:08
    Undecided
    Maynard
    Kennedy lowered them and

    UP WENT THE REVENUE.

    Reagan also lowered them and

    UP WENT THE REVENUE, in fact, it went from

    $500 billion to $985 billion in 8 years.



    If YOUR State tax was 9%, WHY WOULD YOU WORK?
  • tea for... Maynard 2012/01/04 20:14:13
    tea for you
    +1
    Reagan tripled the debt how did revenues go up if the crime boss tripled the debt?
  • Freedom4 tea for... 2012/01/20 02:49:56
    Freedom4
    Obama tripled any deficit any republican ever had and will more debt in 4 years than Bush did in 8. Under Bush, more tan half of every budget was entitlements put in place by democrats. Stop with the nonsense.
  • tea for you 2012/01/04 08:11:44
    Undecided
    tea for you
    +1
    Tax business that import goods from human abuse countries at 91%
  • True~Male tea for... 2012/01/04 15:57:31
    True~Male
    I like that Idea --then more companies would come back to the USA -- Also... Tax the stores that sell imports to customers especially from China at an additional 10%. I think people would start paying attention to items they put in their shopping cart .
  • tea for... True~Male 2012/01/04 18:11:09
    tea for you
    +1
    level the playing field , use the biggest economy to our advantage
  • True~Male tea for... 2012/01/04 19:02:00
    True~Male
    +1
    Don't buy made in China products
  • dallasjoe 2012/01/04 07:38:39
    Undecided
    dallasjoe
    +1
    Yes but what was the effectiive rate after deductions We are at the lowest rate of Taxation since the 1950's
  • A Founding Father 2012/01/04 07:35:40
    Undecided
    A Founding Father
    +1
    It is true that the marginal tax rate was 92%, and the growth of America's middle class was never so great as at that time. The difference is, of course, that there were very few who reached this marginal rate, and there were many lawful deductions to offset earned incomes before reaching the "Taxable Income" computation. The revisions of the Reagan Administration pretty much took away the itemized deductions (they were used by middle income earners) and lowered the top marginal rates, a clever scheme that imposed the burden of supporting government on the middle class. Since then, the top earners have increased their net worth more than four times over, and the middle class has lost more than half of their net worth. Is there something to learn from all of this? Apparently not, for those who live in trailer villages are the most ardent supporters of the Party of No that represents the "Top 2% Club". Apparently it is true that ignorance is it's own reward, so these people have paid for and claimed their own trophies.
  • RobinPeta 2012/01/04 04:31:56
  • True~Male RobinPeta 2012/01/04 05:40:47
    True~Male
    You may be on to something here , I've been doing some research and find it appalling what the rich get away with . The middle class is what keeps this country going NOT THE RICH .
  • RobinPeta True~Male 2012/01/04 05:55:14
    RobinPeta
    +1
    Who ever knew you would have democratic ideas. Welcome to the good side.
  • True~Male RobinPeta 2012/01/04 16:01:40
    True~Male
    Just doing my homework --research and keeping an open mind --Thanks --I do the think the rich need to pay more and tax corperations at a higher rate that have moved their operations overseas or other counties --Even some of the HALLMARK greeting cards are made in China.
  • FAWKES' NOOSE ~ ΔTX 2012/01/04 03:54:26
    Undecided
    FAWKES' NOOSE ~ ΔTX
    +2
    Well yes except that's the TMTR for earned income from wages, which applied mainly to us high income working stiffs. Very few 'Millionaires' derive their income from wages - their income comes mostly from investment (stocks - properties - etc.) which is taxed as Capital Gains. Capital Gains in the 50's was between 13-14%. Today its still only 15% - So basically, we have been getting screwed by the 'millionaires' for over 60 years.
  • LesWaggoner BN 1 2012/01/04 03:32:36 (edited)
    Yes , let us return to the 1950's level
    LesWaggoner BN 1
    +3
    Were you aware that, collectively, we currently pay the lowest level of income taxes since 1932?
    U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2011 Income taxes 1963

    However, the highest income rate was assessed on income of more than $400,000 not $1 million.
  • Sofahead LesWagg... 2012/01/04 04:11:08
    Sofahead
    +2
    If you adjusted for inflation that $400,000 would probably be worth something like 3 million or more.
  • LesWagg... Sofahead 2012/01/04 04:27:26
    LesWaggoner BN 1
    +3
    Not quite. $2,957,254.90
    Your purchasing power has declined by 639.3% since 1963.
  • tooserv 2012/01/04 03:28:20
    Undecided
    tooserv
    Would you like to pay 91% of all your money to taxes?
  • LesWagg... tooserv 2012/01/04 03:53:02
    LesWaggoner BN 1
    +5
    The progressive taxes only require you to pay 91% on that amount of income that exceeds the next lowest level of income. You never pay 91% on your total income.
  • tooserv LesWagg... 2012/01/04 05:20:13
    tooserv
    Where's the numbers of the income levels and the links for these numbers?
  • A Found... tooserv 2012/01/04 07:46:29 (edited)
    A Founding Father
    +2
    Go to Wakapedia or the U.S. Gov./IRS sites and look for the history. The 92% marginal rates was, in fact, the law when I began a career in finance as a CPA, doing some tax work for people who actually reached that marginal rate. As noted above, the earnings then at $400,000 had the same purchasing power as $3 Million has today. So, making the comparison, would it be suitable to tax earnings above $3 Million at a 91% marginal rate (ie, 91% of earnings above the $3 Million)? Tiger Woods and Mel Gibson might sell their private jets, but Warren Buffett and Bill Gates could still fly in "private". Oh the grief that would be caused.
  • tooserv A Found... 2012/01/06 03:50:57
    tooserv
    No matter how much money you make, I think 91% in taxes is too much.
  • A Found... tooserv 2012/01/06 04:57:45 (edited)
    A Founding Father
    +1
    Perhaps. But, back then, before the mirrors of the Code revisions of the 1980s, one could deduct before taxable income a lot of expenses, such as all medical costs, all non-Federal taxes paid, all business or income related expenses, all interest expenses, etc. So, before reachng the top brackets a lot of life was deductible.
  • tooserv A Found... 2012/01/06 05:10:21
    tooserv
    So what was the actual tax rate % they had to pay, after all of the deductions?
  • A Found... tooserv 2012/01/06 05:28:16
    A Founding Father
    +2
    That would vary greatly. Probably more like 50% of income at the level we now call "Adjusted Gross Income". Then, one could deduct all expenses of such investments as comercial real estate or apartments, including all interest, etc., from other sources of income, without limitations. That was a big thing that enabled small investors and middle class citizens to gain real wealth by investing in small buildings, apartments, and such, but was effectively killed by the Reagan Administration, forcing such things into the hands of large corporations and discouraging smaller investors. The real estate industry took more than ten years to recover from the 1980s Code changes.

    There were some amusing things possible then, as one client was able to deduct the costs of a new Mercedes 600 Limo and it's driver, and a new $50,000 swimming pool (1970 dollars) as medical expenses. Swimming was good for his health, driving was not. Today, a private jet is rarely questioned as a deduction, apparently the IRS has not had much luck challenging those who own them.
  • tooserv A Found... 2012/01/06 05:38:35
    tooserv
    So after all the deductions do you think the tax rate % was something like 35%?
  • A Found... tooserv 2012/01/06 05:57:10 (edited)
    A Founding Father
    +1
    Well, any number would have to be qualified as a "percentage of what"? Could be "Cash Income", "Earned Income", Gross Income",
    "Net Income", "Taxable Income", etc... the word "Income" can have several different meanings. By most measures I think the tax on
    incomes would have been between 20 and 50 percent, depending on the bracket of taxation and the choice of which "Income" was measured. Whatever it was, the Federal Income Tax rates applied were higher then than now on most brackets. However, the tax burdens have been cleverly disguised as "Payroll Taxes" and the
    resulting proceeds allowed to be combined with all other general revenues, a scheme to place a greater burden on the lower levels of wage earners, justifying the reductions in higher brackets while claiming to maintain "level revenues". Those "Reaganomics" people were not dummies, some of the highest paid lawyers in Los Angeles wrote the "agenda" and the Code revisions, long before the 1979 election.
  • True~Male A Found... 2012/01/07 17:45:16
    True~Male
    Even interest rate on cars and credit cards were income deductible then.
  • A Found... True~Male 2012/01/07 23:01:15 (edited)
    A Founding Father
    +1
    Indeed, all interest paid was deductibe, as were all medical expenses and all business or income seeking expenses, without limit. By removing these by placing "limits" of the percentage of gross income, Reagan's Administration could prove to Congress that revenues actually would increase even if the top income brackets were given additional credits and lower "rates". Ever been in a carnival house of mirrors? There are some similarities to many stories passed around Washington by lobbyists and Wall Street's bankers.
  • LesWagg... tooserv 2012/01/06 02:24:55
  • tooserv LesWagg... 2012/01/06 03:35:32
    tooserv
    Thanks for the link I'll check it out.
  • LesWagg... tooserv 2012/01/08 05:22:16
    LesWaggoner BN 1
    +1
    Any time I can get anyone to check out the economic history of the U.S. since 1946 I welcome the opportunity. Do bear this in mind ~ no one ever pays the full rate on their entire income unless thay are at the lowest level of taxation. That is why the progressive tax rates we have are the best solution to paying for government.
    True-Male is correct below. If you did fall into the 91% rates your actual taxes would be far below the 91% unless you exceeded that level by millions.

    Tax rates are simply one side of the polygon of economics. You have to look at debt to GDP, % of budget to GDP, the effect of political decisions on the economy.
    I've researched all of this for 40 years because I knew too little. I consider myself a moderate fiscal conservative but the information that I have found indicates that taxes must be raised as well as some budget.cutting to get us beyond this recession. Collectively, we pay the lowest tax rates since 1932 and wonder why the recession continues.
  • True~Male tooserv 2012/01/04 05:42:44
    True~Male
    +1
    If I was a millionare --it wouldn't even phase me !!!!
  • tooserv True~Male 2012/01/06 04:10:07
    tooserv
    Lets say you made 10 million dollars and now you're a millionare, you wouldn't have a problem paying 91% of that money to taxes?
  • True~Male tooserv 2012/01/07 17:46:39
    True~Male
    +1
    Not really --because I would have so many deductions , I might actually end up paying 40%

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/26 14:40:56

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals